The Supreme Court (SC) ordered Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) Chief Persida Rueda Acosta to pay a fine of P30,000 for indirect contempt and P150,000 for grossly undignified conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

In a press briefer issued by its public information office (PIO), the SC also warned Acosta “that a repetition of the same or similar offenses shall be dealt with more severely.”

The PIO said the resolution on Acosta was issued by the unanimous vote of SC justices during a full court session on Tuesday, Feb. 27.

It said the indirect contempt of court penalty is “under Section 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court and for Grossly Undignified Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice under Section 33, Canon VI of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).”

The PIO said the penalty was imposed “in connection with her opposition to the proposed new conflict of interest rule for the PAO, which eventually became Section 22, Canon III of the CPRA.”
“It was determined that Atty. Acosta’s statements and innuendos on her Facebook page, which was accessible to the public, attributed ill intent and malice to the Court. The Court also found that by launching a public campaign against the new conflict of interest rule for the PAO using public attorneys and the PAO’s staff and clients and publicizing the contents of the PAO’s letters to Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo requesting the deletion of the same rule, Atty. Acosta tried to sway the public opinion in order to pressure the Court into yielding to her position,” the PIO said quoting from the SC’s resolution.

“The Court ruled that, aside from constituting indirect contempt, Atty. Acosta’s acts amounted to Grossly Undignified Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice under Section 33(i), Canon VI of the CPRA as the same undermined the public’s confidence in the Court and, consequently, the orderly administration of justice. Atty. Acosta’s actions violated Sections 2 and 14, Canon II of the CPRA which enjoin lawyers to respect the courts, to submit grievances against court officers only through the appropriate remedy and before the proper authorities, and to refrain from making unfounded statements insinuating improper motive on the part of court officers,” the PIO said.

It also said:

“Atty. Acosta was also found to have transgressed the CPRA provisions on the responsible use of social media. Furthermore, Atty. Acosta was deemed to have violated her duty to observe and maintain the respect due to the Court and to promote respect for laws and legal processes under Section 2, Canon II and Section 2, Canon III of the CPRA for issuing Office Order No. 96, Series of 2023 (Office Order).”

“Instead of enjoining public attorneys to strictly comply with the new conflict of interest rule for the PAO, the Office Order instigated disobedience to the rule and implied that the Court, by adopting the new conflict of interest rule for PAO, unduly exposed the PAO lawyers not only to criminal and administrative liability, but also to physical danger.

“Atty. Acosta was meted the penalty of fine in the amount of P30,000 for indirect contempt of court and P150,000 for Grossly Undignified Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offenses shall be dealt with more severely.”

The PIO said it will upload a copy of the SC ruling to the SC website – sc.judiciary.gov.ph – once it is received from the Office of the Clerk of Court.

In July 2023, the SC ordered Acosta to explain why she should not be charged administratively for issuing an office order that gave public attorneys the “discretion and disposition” to comply with the provision of the CPRA.

The PIO said  Acosta’s office order “is viewed by the Court as a further act of disobedience and obstruction which degrades the administration of justice.”

It also said the SC viewed Acosta’s declarations in her office order “as belligerent and disrespectful as she effectively accused the Court of directly exposing the Public Attorneys not only to criminal and administrative liability, but also physical danger.”

Acosta was also asked by the SC to explain why she should not be cited in contempt and disciplined as a lawyer for publicly assailing a CPRA provision through social media posts and newspaper publications.

In response to the order, Acosta apologized to the SC as she announced that she had issued Office Order No. 096 which advised PAO lawyers to reconcile the provision of the CPRA with Article 209 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) that penalizes lawyers for betrayal of public trust.

In her apology, Acosta told the SC justices: “To our beloved justices of the Supreme Court, on behalf of the Public Attorney’s Office and all public attorneys nationwide, I humbly and most respectfully apologize if you may have been hurt by the circumstances.”

“We beg for your understanding and indulgence.  The arguments that we have stated were brought about by our passion to efficiently serve our clients and the poor and needy, which we have been inculcating in our lawyers’ practice,” she also said.

Acosta had been pushing for the removal of Section 22, Canon III which, she claimed, disregarded the PAO’s policy against conflict of interest by allowing PAO lawyers to represent opposing parties in cases.

The provision of the CPRA states:

“The Public Attorney’s Office is the primary legal aid service of the government.  In the pursuit of its mandate under its charter, the Public Attorney’s Office shall ensure ready access to its services by the marginalized sectors of society in a manner that takes into consideration the avoidance of potential conflict of interest situations which will leave these marginalized parties unassisted by counsel.

“A conflict of interest of any of the lawyers of the Public Attorney’s Office incident to services rendered for the Office shall be imputed only to the said lawyer and the lawyer’s direct supervisor. Such conflict of interest shall not disqualify the rest of the lawyers from the Public Attorney’s Office from representing the affected client, upon full disclosure to the latter and written informed consent.”